Now that several of the Republican justices have been so heavily saturated with fat-cat money and thus regularly vote in favor of their morbidly rich “friends,” what do those rich dudes want?
I love how he gets right to the crux of the issue. “WDBW” (what do billionaires want?) is the ONLY question that matters anymore in America. It drives the entire engine. It should be engraved on all currencies.
And I would say, Cathie, that it should be exposed as Thom is doing here. We don't put people in stocks anymore, but we can expose the shamefully selfish motives of the pathologically rich. It's their single-minded focus on their own aggrandizement that needs to be exposed over and over again. It is not something for them to be proud of, and I'm not holding my breath for them to feel ashamed of themselves. But it is important that the rest of us don't idealize them nor ignore the harm they cause the rest of us by their endless need to feel powerful OVER others.
BUT forgive me if I seem anti American but your America was always about money.
The American Dream was a wonderful 'tag-line' to buy. buy. buy. Didn't matter to you whee the goods came from as long as you were able to buy the most updated 'toys.'
To a certain extent I blame the American people:
1. Not voting after Reagan
2. The pursuit of happiness which was predicated on the US dollar.
3. You did not take notice of the never-ending wars particularly in S. America and then you wonder why you have so many immigrants.?
4. Do you really think that the corporations want to get rid of immigrants? IF so why?
I do not live in the US but did for 23yrs and hated it.
NOT many people even KNEW what the US was doing in other countries as long as you were happy.
Finally you are awakening. I hope you can do better than the little British colonial game but I doubt it.
Education is the name of the game.
I live in France and it is not too different but we were not consumers like the US.
We have multiple Parties....where you have only 2 run by big money.
Hmm...I like it! A website or such medium that would have someone in "the stocks" for the day. People could view who was "in the stocks" that day and why. It would take some time to catch on but could be fun and educational.
I think what rich dudes want is secondary and PR and ideology are primary.
By now, Roberts has to know that the integrity of the court is under attack. According to Sen. Whitehouse, whether Thomas has committed several crimes depends on a review of income tax returns covering several years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJJgZxuJqgI
On one hand, the Thomas/Alito "natural law" theology has tied its shoelaces by 10th Amendment "originalist" deference to states through deference to state fact finding -- and Colorado found that Trump aided, abetted and gave cover to an insurrection.
On the other, Koch money goes to Haley.
This is an opportunity for the court to regain some appearance of independence and thus authenticity.
Do they really care? They’ve been in the spotlight for craven cronyism for quite a while now. Nobody (Thomas!) has resigned, no teeth have been inserted into any ethics rules or changes of any significance. I think they just do what the billionaires want with impunity now. Plenty of money around to guarantee their safety and security. They’re a sham court and very comfy with it.
Robert cares about himself. If it promotes his self interest, he's all for it. However, intrying to uphold his reputation as a fair minded judge, he tries to walk a fine line. He has lost the trust of the American people and the court.
"On the one hand" Thomas/Alito are funded, as I know you are aware by Leonard Leo , maker and shaker along with Steven Calabressi Chairman of the Federalist Society who gave tRump the names of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett. On the other hand Koch money goes to Haley and his prescribed republican legislation. In other words Koch money dictates a rule he wants carried out by Congress. Hope I'm right Daniel?
I so appreciate how Thom directs us to look at the levers where power resides. Right now I'm focused on SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment.
I hear a lot about the likelihood of MAGAs becoming violent if TFG gets kicked off the ballot by the Supreme Court. But I haven't heard much concern about what message it sends if the Supreme Court FAILS to defend the Constitution, the peaceful transfer of power, and the people's right to choose their president without fear of violent repercussions.
I've also not heard anything about how a confident republic prepares to utilize law enforcement to signal that political violence will NOT be tolerated. It NEVER goes well when arrogant, entitled demagogues are appeased out of fear. Instead, it signals, as with Hitler, that there will be NO LIMITS on his criminal behavior, and that his most violent, grandiose fantasies of revenge against perceived "enemies" may proceed forthwith without any consequence to him.
I'm anxious that the Supreme Court will roll over and yield to the guy who threatens the most violence, without any consequence for his criminal behavior. We know what the Founders would do but I'm anxious about what this Supreme Court will do.
Thom raises a key question here about our near future, and perhaps, far beyond. It is important to remember that, in 2015-16, D.Trump came out of nowhere, in a political power sense, to steal the Republican voting base. And thanks to a weak Dem candidate, became president. It was no less a shock to the corporate funders of American politics as it was to everyone else.
They struggled to make peace with the family-run business he installed with competing -- and largely incompetent and inexperienced -- support staff.
It was four years of embarrassment overseas, and disaster here.
This time around, the powers that be are making sure it will be different. The HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S project 2025 is a huge, extensively funded program to pre-construct a Trump Administration -- with pre-approved staffing -- that will follow (their) strict privatization and deregulation of everything program.
Those who are on board with this feel that DT is still the best man to muster the faithful and win the White House. Except now, he is on a very short leash. The threat being, of course, it is our way, or a jail cell for you, Donnie.
In the recent Davos conference of the global powers that be, every country's rich and powerful were wringing their hands over the prospect of four more years of Trump. If you wish to see more about it, Google Trump fears at Davos. Their USA brethren tried to calm them down...
My thoughts are the message is: "The fix is in." That this is not going to be your 2010's Trump.
My background is in History and then Global Relations and Trade. Two points:
One, the German aristocracy, military and industrialists in 1932, believed they had A. Hitler in their pockets, too. That did not work out too well;
Two, we are seeing defections already among allied nations. Japan has announced they will NOT develop their new fighter jet (development to begin this year) with the USA, but rather with England/Italy.
Additional warning is the outright disrespect all players in the Middle East are showing America as it tries to take charge with some solution to the growing confrontations, there.
So, one possible answer to Thom's question is: Some rich dudes, at least the ones financing Project 2025, do not want DT banned. They are betting on him to win.
Clinton wasn't "a weak Dem candidate." The media trashed her over and over again with misogynistic tripe. James Comey sabotaged her days from the election. She STILL got millions more votes than Trump.
Lord knows, we would have had a solid, status-quo (incl. no harm to the oligarchy) presidency with Hillary. Her cynical pandering vote for "shock and awe" on iraq meant I still shed no tears. I suppose I would have "held my nose" and voted for her if I had been in a state where it mattered. As it was, I confess here in California I "wasted" my vote on whoever that was for the Peace and Freedom Party, no guilt at all.
You have the right to vote for whomever you want. That is supposed to be our system. That's the myth, anyway. The reality, however, is that we have a two-party system and there are only ever two real choices for president - Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. A third-party vote is generally a vote for the Republicans, because most of the third-party votes tend come from the left-ish side (Green, Peace, whatever.) Jill Stein was a Putin plant - whether knowingly, as a direct agent, or as a useful idiot, I can't say, but she definitely worked to Putin's (and Trump's) agenda. She hung out with and was herself, one of the elites. By some estimates, her campaign cost HRC the election.
The hatred of HRC had much more to do with her gender than any of her votes or policies. The Republicans hated her from way back. The Democratic men who voted for the war were not tarred and feathered like she was. The men, who did exactly the same things - such as give pricey speeches to bankers or vote for the war - were never called out. The media focused on her hair, her face, her voice, her "likability," (code for her gender,) and her pantsuits.
I don't judge about the third party votes; my own son generally votes third-party. We, of course, argue (respectfully) about this. At the end of the arguments, we often comment to one another that Choice A (Democrats) is the slow death and Choice (Republicans) is the quick death. So, he votes, essentially, for the quick death. You and I agree on that one. But I would maintain that the slow death might give us a chance to age-out the really destructive boomer MAGA and let the young people start cleaning things up. I say this as a boomer myself.
HRC wasn't the only Democrat to vote for the wars; 80 more of the Democrats (39.2%) also voted for the war. It was the American people themselves calling for the blood. We live in a very violent, revenge-oriented culture. But mostly the war was a huge boon to the military-industrial complex. I would know, I worked in this complex most of my adult life (that's a long story) and during the wars, for a company whose sales soared as a result. I was off working in the space systems niche and we didn't get any of the war money - perhaps a bit to update some of the older systems; but the ground vehicles division made money almost faster than then they could count it. The explosives people couldn't produce bombs fast enough.
Tell me, then, why we were really at war and why Obama really didn't do anything to bring that war to an end.
I agree with your recap of everything. The sentence "It was the American people themselves calling for blood." stood out for me. I think we are so perplexed by the pervasive, subversive internet now that we forget those earlier days of the Big Lies of the Bush disciples of "The Great American Century" that got broadcast just fine via oldfangled media. In short, Fox. My Mom, a Master-degreed person who took me to the Alhambra with reverence when I was a kid, bellowed at the TV screen that all Arabs were barbarians who needed to be bombed back to the caves they came out of. She raved about feminists not protesting to save Bagdad women from the Burqa, while I, consuming a variety of alternative print media, could only shut myself up. MSNBC pander/collapsed, featuring Joe Scarborough and Yes! Tucker Carlson war-mongering, while censoring out Phil Donahue. "The American People" were bullhorned into that bloodthirst from every source. The San Francisco Chronicle filled most of the front page with a giant image of LeBron James, then a high schooler in Ohio, on the day they "buried", bottom of far inside page, Hans Blix's closing report that THERE WERE NO WMD's IN IRAQ! But of all the people in the world, not to mention Presidential aspirations, Hillary Clinton knew perfectly, absolutely well there were NO WMD's IN IRAQ. Hillary, whose husband was getting post-presidential security briefings. Hillary, supposed to be so connected and at least as bright as me. But she had to calculate that a female would be called "weak on war" as a presidential candidate. So yeah, Shock and Awe, Baby!
"But of all the people in the world, not to mention Presidential aspirations, Hillary Clinton knew perfectly, absolutely well there were NO WMD's IN IRAQ."
Clearly, you are better at mind-reading than I am because I have seen no proof this was the case. A LOT of people were mislead by George Bush, Colin Powell, the Republicans in congress and, most appallingly, the intelligence community. I worked with senior members of the military (we're talking senior-Colonels and Generals - both retired and active duty.) For the most part, they all believed the official line; if ANYONE would know better, it would be them. I doubt Bill's security briefings were on the up and up, as we know they were controlled by the White House (Bush, et al) at the time. The Republicans lied to the nation to provide a war for the military industrial complex. The bombs were getting old and needed to be tested/used up so new ones could fill the inventory. Bush wanted to avenge his daddy, on whom Iraq had tried an assassination. The WMDs were just an excuse. In fact, when it was pointed out the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq or Afghanistan, I heard one man say, "Doesn't matter. They are all rag heads." (Apologies, but this was the exact quote.). While I don't disagree that Clinton had to be careful not to appear "too soft," (I could go on and on about THAT for while from personal experience), I think she was fooled like the rest of us.
It has been interesting to revisit my memories of that time. I did think of the angle that Bill's briefings could have been doctored. But I keep remembering all the ways I knew! Hans Blix, for one, was reporting his progress; the infamous "tubes" were debunked, Saddam in wildest dreams wasn't going to team up with Iran: I got my first info about that Sunni/Shia situation. etc. etc. Heck, the whole world knew except the usual authoritarian patsies here in the USA: remember the massive worldwide protests? What rock was Hillary hiding under?
You add to the picture the "world view," which I agree is crucial. Money simply is not "national" to any nation anymore. In general, world markets react negatively to "volatility," ie any event or influence that "rocks the boat" of the flow of global trade. Trump making an ass of America is profoundly destabilizing. The real Powers and Principalities may have tolerated the convenient goon the first time around, but I'm betting he's nearing the end of his rope with the Players who count.
Definitely the 14th amendment. If this bought supreme court dodges out on this, we need to take action.
Seriously.
Mass protests around the Supremely bought&sold Robert’s
court.
As for the coward, the orange piece of melting jello, no one needs to repeat his recent crazy rants because he’s going to go nuttier ..if that’s even possible… as this year proceeds.
"No matter how they rule, this is going to be a tough one for the Court’s most corrupted Republicans who’ve taken millions from their morbidly rich donors and “friends."
It won't be tough at all. The corruption is blatant; they know we know and they don't care, because they have their powerful jobs for life. Right now, we are being ruled by the conservatives on the SCOTUS - an unelected grab bag of corrupt (likely criminally so) partisan and ideological hacks.
I suspect that the Court will try to skate on this, and the best approach I can see they might take is to declare that Trump has not been convicted of an insurrection, while the original Confederate officers and leaders had been "convicted" by their actions in seceding from the Union and engaging in a war against the United States. We'll see what the "powers that be" desire.....
Alito and Thomas are corrupted by money, from Trump humping donors. The other four are more than likely afraid for their skins and careers as both Trump and his cult have threatened revenge.
I have seen no signs of moral courage on their part.
And scant signs of moral courage on the part of politicians, especially in the Republican party.
Roberts is also corruption, via his wife. Once he got his seat on the bench, her work as a "legal talent finder" soared to unprecedented heights at rate not seen by anyone else in the business - to the tune of a cool million per year over ten years.
I have to agree that your take on the matter is the most likely. All the “legislative intent” arguments will fail. Plain meaning? Can’t go there since the word is used only by one side. Too bad the Constitution doesn’t ban baboons.
Yes! Part of the propaganda is the Trump got no due process, but I remember long evidentiary hearings in "District Court," I believe with a fact-finding that Trump had committed Insurrection. The subsequent CO Supreme Court proceeding included hearings on the legal issue, but the FACTS were decided at length. The CO Supreme Ct. decision dominates Google, all I could find from lower court evidence/fact foundation was this: https://www.c-span.org/video/?531896-101/president-trump-14th-amendment-hearing-colorado-day-6-part-2 Like, Day 6 of fact-finding. Otherwise known as "due process."
With all the pus boiling out of both the Congress and Supreme Court and sometimes the Presidency, I think the United States government is clo TVse to melt down. The infection of corporate billionaire greed is so serious as to render our government as experiencing "sepsis" and likely death. We are all in ICU to be sure. Maybe a heroic pouring out of voter fury and rationality can cleanse the infection somewhat. I am not optimistic. Our allies smell the stink. Do we?
Their decision will be made by analyzing their personal danger. Will they side with their benefactors and the hoards of trump lovers, or will they rule on the merits and save democracy?
They have made it very clear that they interpret the Constitution through the lens of “originalism.” To allow trump to be on the ballot in Colorado, and consequently anywhere else in the country, would be to admit that they are extremely partisan and corrupt.
Tough call on this one. John Roberts must be sweating bullets.
Wanted to send fellow feeling on bullying spell-check (AI) of course you typed in "hordes!" Who knew we would have to proof every word against the machine's "suggestion!" Anyhow, one of the Amicus briefs tracked down multiple ORIGINAL commentary that 14th was NOT intended to be limited to Civil War rebels, but was to interdict future insurrectionists as well.
The 14th amendment clearly states a solution for anyone being disqualified under this section. It is the last sentence in section 3 "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This is SCOTUS' off ramp. They simply need to rule that our constitution does allow him to remove his disability by a two thirds vote in each house. Easy peasy! Go for it 45!
Our constitution is supposed to protect us and should prevent many who have betrayed their oath of office from holding office now, and ever again. All traitors must be held accountable imho.
I tend to believe that Scotus will support trump. The reps have used all possible tricks to stop obama appointing his own judges. The most important job of trump was to place at all levels as many rep judges you could dream of. And he has succeeded the little corrupt bugger! Now comes payback time for these rotten so called "justices". They must show allegiance to the orange bully. Insane!
This is nuts. Only state electoral officers can determine eligibility of a candidate for office and the ONLY recourse is the court of the senate. The supreme court has no place in this constitutional law.
Looks like an easy off-ramp for the SC, and one some of the morbidly rich (except Koch) might find satisfying; however, it won’t help the SC’s credibility at all. The election laws of some states allow for state election officials and/or state courts to determine eligibility to hold office other states’ laws only determine eligibility to be on a ballot with the candidate signing an affidavit of qualification. I fear such a SC decision will make a mess of things where tRump will remain on Red state ballots and some but not all Blue state ballots. This does nothing for the ultimate question “can tRump legally hold office?” Could be used as a SC punt to after November’s election, but prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. Anything’s possible up to a swearing in and the VP is sworn in first and if the president elect is dead or ineligible, the VP elect is sworn in as president.
If the ecollege fails, it goes to the state legislators which get one vote. There are presently more Repub legislators so Trump is president again assuming Nikki is unable to get in the fight.
That’s the scenario. Contingent Election, each state gets one vote. Currently there are more states controlled by republicans than democrats, two are split. That’s why everything possible needs to be done prior to November to get tRump off the ballot by 14A3 disqualification, convicted and jailed (surveys show he loses some support), or he suffers a major stroke.
In a Contingent Election the House elects the president (one vote per state) and the Senate elects the VP (one vote per state). tRump/Harris - could you imagine the cabinet meetings?
Can criminal Donald Trump be ALLOWED to CONTROL a WANTED and NEEDED border deal because he wants to kill the bill to get reelected?
- Mitch McConnell wants it.
- The border patrol officers want it.
- The REPUBLICANS who worked on it want it.
- The Republicans had ASKED for it.
This bill would SOLVE the border problem! Something the Republicans have been screaming for.
The border would shut down at a certain number. It would make the numbers of immigrants entering MANAGEABLE.j
It would also supply Israel and Ukraine with desperately needed aide.
Trump is telling Johnson NOT to allow a vote and lapdog Johnson is obeying him. Trump wants to use the border problem AGAINST Biden in the election; he doesn’t WANT the border problem solved.
Can ANYONE overrule Johnson and at least get this bill to a vote? For the sake of our country?
O'Donnell on MSNBC had on one of the Amicus professors, bringing up that the 14th was NOT just topical in reaction to Civil War insurrection, but was explicitly stated in ORIGINAL commentary to be intended to guard against insurrection as it might occur in their future, including NOW. I try to look these things up, but can't pin it down: need the Prof's name. But it's part of what the Injustices have in front of them now. No "escape" there. This question of are the Sugar Daddies done with Trump has been on my mind since the CO decision came down. My take, for what it's worth, is that the "rich dudes" are OK with the end of the dance with Trump. Funny to reflect back on Hillary calling him a puppet, and his outraged projection back. Funny, because BOTH were right, but Hillary wouldn't have screwed things up quite so bad.
Question 1-It might have been a strategic mistake.
Question 2-My account isn't balanced by independent investigators-My account addresses your off the wall reference that the Rothchilds had 20 trillion to spread around to their favorite causes. You forgot to mention Soros, a favorite trope that your biased investigators throw around. The history of Israel is written in the lead up to the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations the 1948 declaration of Israel'si Independence, all signed by the allied powers. You and your Arab friends just don't like what they signed. JNF holds the deeds to this land purchased at the time. The fact that Israel turned swamp land into a thriving democracy where Monsour Abbas represents 20% of the Israeli population is a thorn in your side. Once again you are spreading disinformation, a well known tactic to sway public opinion. The IDF under Netanyahu's leadership has had their videos confirmed by US intelligence. That's the investigation that makes your argument as tRump's blatant lies.
Question #3-The fact that you would reference HAMAS's version of events, a terrorist organization that committed atrocities equal to Hitler's tells me all I need to know about you.
Question 4-Netanyahu and previous leaders of Israel have tried to bend over backwards to find a way to live in peace with the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon removed all of the military from Gaza in 2005. Clinton gave Arafat everything he demanded. What was the Palestinian response that culminated in the most horrific attack on teenagers attending a conference, parents with their vaginas exposed after repeated rapes elderly grandparents in their homes were murdered in cold blood. I suppose the burned bodies beyond recognition and the videos to prove it were just made up stories according to you. You are a biased individual that doesn't deserve my time.
I love how he gets right to the crux of the issue. “WDBW” (what do billionaires want?) is the ONLY question that matters anymore in America. It drives the entire engine. It should be engraved on all currencies.
And I would say, Cathie, that it should be exposed as Thom is doing here. We don't put people in stocks anymore, but we can expose the shamefully selfish motives of the pathologically rich. It's their single-minded focus on their own aggrandizement that needs to be exposed over and over again. It is not something for them to be proud of, and I'm not holding my breath for them to feel ashamed of themselves. But it is important that the rest of us don't idealize them nor ignore the harm they cause the rest of us by their endless need to feel powerful OVER others.
I agree Madeleine.
BUT forgive me if I seem anti American but your America was always about money.
The American Dream was a wonderful 'tag-line' to buy. buy. buy. Didn't matter to you whee the goods came from as long as you were able to buy the most updated 'toys.'
To a certain extent I blame the American people:
1. Not voting after Reagan
2. The pursuit of happiness which was predicated on the US dollar.
3. You did not take notice of the never-ending wars particularly in S. America and then you wonder why you have so many immigrants.?
4. Do you really think that the corporations want to get rid of immigrants? IF so why?
I do not live in the US but did for 23yrs and hated it.
NOT many people even KNEW what the US was doing in other countries as long as you were happy.
Finally you are awakening. I hope you can do better than the little British colonial game but I doubt it.
Education is the name of the game.
I live in France and it is not too different but we were not consumers like the US.
We have multiple Parties....where you have only 2 run by big money.
What are you going to do?
Je suis d'accord complètement!
Merci beaucoup.
Hmm...I like it! A website or such medium that would have someone in "the stocks" for the day. People could view who was "in the stocks" that day and why. It would take some time to catch on but could be fun and educational.
That's a super idea, Bret! Someone like Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, or The Meidas Touch could do that. :D
Jeff Tiedrich would nail it.
Haha! Sure would! :D
I like flogging better? A good flogger should be able to do about 50 people a day?
I'm guessing you're using "flogging" metaphorically, yes?
I think the US was always about money.
Oh for heaven's sakes, some place and time you know not so?
? ...any more ...? > 100 yrs
I think what rich dudes want is secondary and PR and ideology are primary.
By now, Roberts has to know that the integrity of the court is under attack. According to Sen. Whitehouse, whether Thomas has committed several crimes depends on a review of income tax returns covering several years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJJgZxuJqgI
On one hand, the Thomas/Alito "natural law" theology has tied its shoelaces by 10th Amendment "originalist" deference to states through deference to state fact finding -- and Colorado found that Trump aided, abetted and gave cover to an insurrection.
On the other, Koch money goes to Haley.
This is an opportunity for the court to regain some appearance of independence and thus authenticity.
Do they really care? They’ve been in the spotlight for craven cronyism for quite a while now. Nobody (Thomas!) has resigned, no teeth have been inserted into any ethics rules or changes of any significance. I think they just do what the billionaires want with impunity now. Plenty of money around to guarantee their safety and security. They’re a sham court and very comfy with it.
The court should never have been attached to the Govt. in the first place.
Here in France it is separate and politicians cannot vote for Justices.
Seems safe for the moment but the world is changing.
Roberts may care about the court's legacy, but Alito and Thomas do not, and they have more power than Roberts.
Robert cares about himself. If it promotes his self interest, he's all for it. However, intrying to uphold his reputation as a fair minded judge, he tries to walk a fine line. He has lost the trust of the American people and the court.
"On the one hand" Thomas/Alito are funded, as I know you are aware by Leonard Leo , maker and shaker along with Steven Calabressi Chairman of the Federalist Society who gave tRump the names of Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett. On the other hand Koch money goes to Haley and his prescribed republican legislation. In other words Koch money dictates a rule he wants carried out by Congress. Hope I'm right Daniel?
I have been thinking for a long time EXACTLY what Thomas and his brigade are doing.
They are taking 'tweezers' to the American constitution without realising that things have changed.
The Supreme Court should be separate from Congress/Senate.
I so appreciate how Thom directs us to look at the levers where power resides. Right now I'm focused on SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment.
I hear a lot about the likelihood of MAGAs becoming violent if TFG gets kicked off the ballot by the Supreme Court. But I haven't heard much concern about what message it sends if the Supreme Court FAILS to defend the Constitution, the peaceful transfer of power, and the people's right to choose their president without fear of violent repercussions.
I've also not heard anything about how a confident republic prepares to utilize law enforcement to signal that political violence will NOT be tolerated. It NEVER goes well when arrogant, entitled demagogues are appeased out of fear. Instead, it signals, as with Hitler, that there will be NO LIMITS on his criminal behavior, and that his most violent, grandiose fantasies of revenge against perceived "enemies" may proceed forthwith without any consequence to him.
I'm anxious that the Supreme Court will roll over and yield to the guy who threatens the most violence, without any consequence for his criminal behavior. We know what the Founders would do but I'm anxious about what this Supreme Court will do.
All,
Thom raises a key question here about our near future, and perhaps, far beyond. It is important to remember that, in 2015-16, D.Trump came out of nowhere, in a political power sense, to steal the Republican voting base. And thanks to a weak Dem candidate, became president. It was no less a shock to the corporate funders of American politics as it was to everyone else.
They struggled to make peace with the family-run business he installed with competing -- and largely incompetent and inexperienced -- support staff.
It was four years of embarrassment overseas, and disaster here.
This time around, the powers that be are making sure it will be different. The HERITAGE FOUNDATION'S project 2025 is a huge, extensively funded program to pre-construct a Trump Administration -- with pre-approved staffing -- that will follow (their) strict privatization and deregulation of everything program.
Those who are on board with this feel that DT is still the best man to muster the faithful and win the White House. Except now, he is on a very short leash. The threat being, of course, it is our way, or a jail cell for you, Donnie.
In the recent Davos conference of the global powers that be, every country's rich and powerful were wringing their hands over the prospect of four more years of Trump. If you wish to see more about it, Google Trump fears at Davos. Their USA brethren tried to calm them down...
My thoughts are the message is: "The fix is in." That this is not going to be your 2010's Trump.
My background is in History and then Global Relations and Trade. Two points:
One, the German aristocracy, military and industrialists in 1932, believed they had A. Hitler in their pockets, too. That did not work out too well;
Two, we are seeing defections already among allied nations. Japan has announced they will NOT develop their new fighter jet (development to begin this year) with the USA, but rather with England/Italy.
Additional warning is the outright disrespect all players in the Middle East are showing America as it tries to take charge with some solution to the growing confrontations, there.
So, one possible answer to Thom's question is: Some rich dudes, at least the ones financing Project 2025, do not want DT banned. They are betting on him to win.
Donald Laghezza
Clinton wasn't "a weak Dem candidate." The media trashed her over and over again with misogynistic tripe. James Comey sabotaged her days from the election. She STILL got millions more votes than Trump.
We can agree to disagree on the matter.
D
Lord knows, we would have had a solid, status-quo (incl. no harm to the oligarchy) presidency with Hillary. Her cynical pandering vote for "shock and awe" on iraq meant I still shed no tears. I suppose I would have "held my nose" and voted for her if I had been in a state where it mattered. As it was, I confess here in California I "wasted" my vote on whoever that was for the Peace and Freedom Party, no guilt at all.
You have the right to vote for whomever you want. That is supposed to be our system. That's the myth, anyway. The reality, however, is that we have a two-party system and there are only ever two real choices for president - Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum. A third-party vote is generally a vote for the Republicans, because most of the third-party votes tend come from the left-ish side (Green, Peace, whatever.) Jill Stein was a Putin plant - whether knowingly, as a direct agent, or as a useful idiot, I can't say, but she definitely worked to Putin's (and Trump's) agenda. She hung out with and was herself, one of the elites. By some estimates, her campaign cost HRC the election.
The hatred of HRC had much more to do with her gender than any of her votes or policies. The Republicans hated her from way back. The Democratic men who voted for the war were not tarred and feathered like she was. The men, who did exactly the same things - such as give pricey speeches to bankers or vote for the war - were never called out. The media focused on her hair, her face, her voice, her "likability," (code for her gender,) and her pantsuits.
I don't judge about the third party votes; my own son generally votes third-party. We, of course, argue (respectfully) about this. At the end of the arguments, we often comment to one another that Choice A (Democrats) is the slow death and Choice (Republicans) is the quick death. So, he votes, essentially, for the quick death. You and I agree on that one. But I would maintain that the slow death might give us a chance to age-out the really destructive boomer MAGA and let the young people start cleaning things up. I say this as a boomer myself.
HRC wasn't the only Democrat to vote for the wars; 80 more of the Democrats (39.2%) also voted for the war. It was the American people themselves calling for the blood. We live in a very violent, revenge-oriented culture. But mostly the war was a huge boon to the military-industrial complex. I would know, I worked in this complex most of my adult life (that's a long story) and during the wars, for a company whose sales soared as a result. I was off working in the space systems niche and we didn't get any of the war money - perhaps a bit to update some of the older systems; but the ground vehicles division made money almost faster than then they could count it. The explosives people couldn't produce bombs fast enough.
Tell me, then, why we were really at war and why Obama really didn't do anything to bring that war to an end.
I agree with your recap of everything. The sentence "It was the American people themselves calling for blood." stood out for me. I think we are so perplexed by the pervasive, subversive internet now that we forget those earlier days of the Big Lies of the Bush disciples of "The Great American Century" that got broadcast just fine via oldfangled media. In short, Fox. My Mom, a Master-degreed person who took me to the Alhambra with reverence when I was a kid, bellowed at the TV screen that all Arabs were barbarians who needed to be bombed back to the caves they came out of. She raved about feminists not protesting to save Bagdad women from the Burqa, while I, consuming a variety of alternative print media, could only shut myself up. MSNBC pander/collapsed, featuring Joe Scarborough and Yes! Tucker Carlson war-mongering, while censoring out Phil Donahue. "The American People" were bullhorned into that bloodthirst from every source. The San Francisco Chronicle filled most of the front page with a giant image of LeBron James, then a high schooler in Ohio, on the day they "buried", bottom of far inside page, Hans Blix's closing report that THERE WERE NO WMD's IN IRAQ! But of all the people in the world, not to mention Presidential aspirations, Hillary Clinton knew perfectly, absolutely well there were NO WMD's IN IRAQ. Hillary, whose husband was getting post-presidential security briefings. Hillary, supposed to be so connected and at least as bright as me. But she had to calculate that a female would be called "weak on war" as a presidential candidate. So yeah, Shock and Awe, Baby!
"But of all the people in the world, not to mention Presidential aspirations, Hillary Clinton knew perfectly, absolutely well there were NO WMD's IN IRAQ."
Clearly, you are better at mind-reading than I am because I have seen no proof this was the case. A LOT of people were mislead by George Bush, Colin Powell, the Republicans in congress and, most appallingly, the intelligence community. I worked with senior members of the military (we're talking senior-Colonels and Generals - both retired and active duty.) For the most part, they all believed the official line; if ANYONE would know better, it would be them. I doubt Bill's security briefings were on the up and up, as we know they were controlled by the White House (Bush, et al) at the time. The Republicans lied to the nation to provide a war for the military industrial complex. The bombs were getting old and needed to be tested/used up so new ones could fill the inventory. Bush wanted to avenge his daddy, on whom Iraq had tried an assassination. The WMDs were just an excuse. In fact, when it was pointed out the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq or Afghanistan, I heard one man say, "Doesn't matter. They are all rag heads." (Apologies, but this was the exact quote.). While I don't disagree that Clinton had to be careful not to appear "too soft," (I could go on and on about THAT for while from personal experience), I think she was fooled like the rest of us.
It has been interesting to revisit my memories of that time. I did think of the angle that Bill's briefings could have been doctored. But I keep remembering all the ways I knew! Hans Blix, for one, was reporting his progress; the infamous "tubes" were debunked, Saddam in wildest dreams wasn't going to team up with Iran: I got my first info about that Sunni/Shia situation. etc. etc. Heck, the whole world knew except the usual authoritarian patsies here in the USA: remember the massive worldwide protests? What rock was Hillary hiding under?
You add to the picture the "world view," which I agree is crucial. Money simply is not "national" to any nation anymore. In general, world markets react negatively to "volatility," ie any event or influence that "rocks the boat" of the flow of global trade. Trump making an ass of America is profoundly destabilizing. The real Powers and Principalities may have tolerated the convenient goon the first time around, but I'm betting he's nearing the end of his rope with the Players who count.
If I was a multi billionaire I personally would be extremely worried at having Trump as President.
All the data we have on Trump shows he is without doubt unreliable.
For the last few weeks I have 'felt' things are changing with regard to the above. I am reading a lot of interesting points on this.
Definitely the 14th amendment. If this bought supreme court dodges out on this, we need to take action.
Seriously.
Mass protests around the Supremely bought&sold Robert’s
court.
As for the coward, the orange piece of melting jello, no one needs to repeat his recent crazy rants because he’s going to go nuttier ..if that’s even possible… as this year proceeds.
Melt down.
Right once a day.
"No matter how they rule, this is going to be a tough one for the Court’s most corrupted Republicans who’ve taken millions from their morbidly rich donors and “friends."
It won't be tough at all. The corruption is blatant; they know we know and they don't care, because they have their powerful jobs for life. Right now, we are being ruled by the conservatives on the SCOTUS - an unelected grab bag of corrupt (likely criminally so) partisan and ideological hacks.
I suspect that the Court will try to skate on this, and the best approach I can see they might take is to declare that Trump has not been convicted of an insurrection, while the original Confederate officers and leaders had been "convicted" by their actions in seceding from the Union and engaging in a war against the United States. We'll see what the "powers that be" desire.....
Alito and Thomas are corrupted by money, from Trump humping donors. The other four are more than likely afraid for their skins and careers as both Trump and his cult have threatened revenge.
I have seen no signs of moral courage on their part.
And scant signs of moral courage on the part of politicians, especially in the Republican party.
Roberts is also corruption, via his wife. Once he got his seat on the bench, her work as a "legal talent finder" soared to unprecedented heights at rate not seen by anyone else in the business - to the tune of a cool million per year over ten years.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I also believe that Gorsuch has some conflicts of interest via his mother or wife.
ACB is just another Gilead Handmaid, properly brainwashed by family, church and friends.
I have to agree that your take on the matter is the most likely. All the “legislative intent” arguments will fail. Plain meaning? Can’t go there since the word is used only by one side. Too bad the Constitution doesn’t ban baboons.
The only argument that might succeed is the argument about not being tested in the courts. I frankly think Trump’s other arguments are bogus.
14th Amendment procedural due process only requires that a complainant be given an opportunity to be heard.
Yes, it’s just the arguments Trump’s counsel raises look meritless.
Yes! Part of the propaganda is the Trump got no due process, but I remember long evidentiary hearings in "District Court," I believe with a fact-finding that Trump had committed Insurrection. The subsequent CO Supreme Court proceeding included hearings on the legal issue, but the FACTS were decided at length. The CO Supreme Ct. decision dominates Google, all I could find from lower court evidence/fact foundation was this: https://www.c-span.org/video/?531896-101/president-trump-14th-amendment-hearing-colorado-day-6-part-2 Like, Day 6 of fact-finding. Otherwise known as "due process."
With all the pus boiling out of both the Congress and Supreme Court and sometimes the Presidency, I think the United States government is clo TVse to melt down. The infection of corporate billionaire greed is so serious as to render our government as experiencing "sepsis" and likely death. We are all in ICU to be sure. Maybe a heroic pouring out of voter fury and rationality can cleanse the infection somewhat. I am not optimistic. Our allies smell the stink. Do we?
Their decision will be made by analyzing their personal danger. Will they side with their benefactors and the hoards of trump lovers, or will they rule on the merits and save democracy?
They have made it very clear that they interpret the Constitution through the lens of “originalism.” To allow trump to be on the ballot in Colorado, and consequently anywhere else in the country, would be to admit that they are extremely partisan and corrupt.
Tough call on this one. John Roberts must be sweating bullets.
Wanted to send fellow feeling on bullying spell-check (AI) of course you typed in "hordes!" Who knew we would have to proof every word against the machine's "suggestion!" Anyhow, one of the Amicus briefs tracked down multiple ORIGINAL commentary that 14th was NOT intended to be limited to Civil War rebels, but was to interdict future insurrectionists as well.
The 14th amendment clearly states a solution for anyone being disqualified under this section. It is the last sentence in section 3 "But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This is SCOTUS' off ramp. They simply need to rule that our constitution does allow him to remove his disability by a two thirds vote in each house. Easy peasy! Go for it 45!
Our constitution is supposed to protect us and should prevent many who have betrayed their oath of office from holding office now, and ever again. All traitors must be held accountable imho.
Good thinking outside the Box.
Question is how will this fascistic inclined Supreme Court rule.
I tend to believe that Scotus will support trump. The reps have used all possible tricks to stop obama appointing his own judges. The most important job of trump was to place at all levels as many rep judges you could dream of. And he has succeeded the little corrupt bugger! Now comes payback time for these rotten so called "justices". They must show allegiance to the orange bully. Insane!
This is nuts. Only state electoral officers can determine eligibility of a candidate for office and the ONLY recourse is the court of the senate. The supreme court has no place in this constitutional law.
Looks like an easy off-ramp for the SC, and one some of the morbidly rich (except Koch) might find satisfying; however, it won’t help the SC’s credibility at all. The election laws of some states allow for state election officials and/or state courts to determine eligibility to hold office other states’ laws only determine eligibility to be on a ballot with the candidate signing an affidavit of qualification. I fear such a SC decision will make a mess of things where tRump will remain on Red state ballots and some but not all Blue state ballots. This does nothing for the ultimate question “can tRump legally hold office?” Could be used as a SC punt to after November’s election, but prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. Anything’s possible up to a swearing in and the VP is sworn in first and if the president elect is dead or ineligible, the VP elect is sworn in as president.
If the ecollege fails, it goes to the state legislators which get one vote. There are presently more Repub legislators so Trump is president again assuming Nikki is unable to get in the fight.
That’s the scenario. Contingent Election, each state gets one vote. Currently there are more states controlled by republicans than democrats, two are split. That’s why everything possible needs to be done prior to November to get tRump off the ballot by 14A3 disqualification, convicted and jailed (surveys show he loses some support), or he suffers a major stroke.
In a Contingent Election the House elects the president (one vote per state) and the Senate elects the VP (one vote per state). tRump/Harris - could you imagine the cabinet meetings?
Can criminal Donald Trump be ALLOWED to CONTROL a WANTED and NEEDED border deal because he wants to kill the bill to get reelected?
- Mitch McConnell wants it.
- The border patrol officers want it.
- The REPUBLICANS who worked on it want it.
- The Republicans had ASKED for it.
This bill would SOLVE the border problem! Something the Republicans have been screaming for.
The border would shut down at a certain number. It would make the numbers of immigrants entering MANAGEABLE.j
It would also supply Israel and Ukraine with desperately needed aide.
Trump is telling Johnson NOT to allow a vote and lapdog Johnson is obeying him. Trump wants to use the border problem AGAINST Biden in the election; he doesn’t WANT the border problem solved.
Can ANYONE overrule Johnson and at least get this bill to a vote? For the sake of our country?
O'Donnell on MSNBC had on one of the Amicus professors, bringing up that the 14th was NOT just topical in reaction to Civil War insurrection, but was explicitly stated in ORIGINAL commentary to be intended to guard against insurrection as it might occur in their future, including NOW. I try to look these things up, but can't pin it down: need the Prof's name. But it's part of what the Injustices have in front of them now. No "escape" there. This question of are the Sugar Daddies done with Trump has been on my mind since the CO decision came down. My take, for what it's worth, is that the "rich dudes" are OK with the end of the dance with Trump. Funny to reflect back on Hillary calling him a puppet, and his outraged projection back. Funny, because BOTH were right, but Hillary wouldn't have screwed things up quite so bad.
Question 1-It might have been a strategic mistake.
Question 2-My account isn't balanced by independent investigators-My account addresses your off the wall reference that the Rothchilds had 20 trillion to spread around to their favorite causes. You forgot to mention Soros, a favorite trope that your biased investigators throw around. The history of Israel is written in the lead up to the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations the 1948 declaration of Israel'si Independence, all signed by the allied powers. You and your Arab friends just don't like what they signed. JNF holds the deeds to this land purchased at the time. The fact that Israel turned swamp land into a thriving democracy where Monsour Abbas represents 20% of the Israeli population is a thorn in your side. Once again you are spreading disinformation, a well known tactic to sway public opinion. The IDF under Netanyahu's leadership has had their videos confirmed by US intelligence. That's the investigation that makes your argument as tRump's blatant lies.
Question #3-The fact that you would reference HAMAS's version of events, a terrorist organization that committed atrocities equal to Hitler's tells me all I need to know about you.
Question 4-Netanyahu and previous leaders of Israel have tried to bend over backwards to find a way to live in peace with the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon removed all of the military from Gaza in 2005. Clinton gave Arafat everything he demanded. What was the Palestinian response that culminated in the most horrific attack on teenagers attending a conference, parents with their vaginas exposed after repeated rapes elderly grandparents in their homes were murdered in cold blood. I suppose the burned bodies beyond recognition and the videos to prove it were just made up stories according to you. You are a biased individual that doesn't deserve my time.